PRABHAKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Appeals were filed separately by Chidambaram (Appellant/First Accused in C.A.No. 134 of 1994) and Prabhakaran (Appellant/Second Accused in C.A.No. 725 of 1993), directed against the common conclusions, but orders were pronounced on 30-9-1993 against the first accused viz., Chidambaram (Appellant in C.A.No. 134 of 1994) and on 5-10-1993 against the second accused viz., Prabhakaran (Appellant in C.A.No. 725 of 1993) in C.CNo. 2 of 1993 by the Additional Special Judge, Madras Division, in which, the appellants/accused were found guilty of the offence under Section 8(c) read with 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act 1,985, and they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default further shall undergo R.I. for two years.

(2.) Though these two appeals were filed separately and argued by two different advocates, these two appeals may be clubbed together and a common order may be passed, as it arises from a common judgment passed by the Trial Court, involving a common and same set of facts. Hence, both the appeals were taken together and a common order has been passed. The advocates for the appellants also agree for the same.

(3.) The case of the prosecution, as stated, was that on 25-8-1992 in the evening Pakyaraj, P.W.3, Sub-Inspector of Police, N.I.B.C.I.D., Madras had received an oral and confidential information stating that some Sri Lankans, whose names and addresses were not known, usually transporting heroin to Kattan Kuppam, Madras in the early hours between 3.00 a.m. and 5.00 a.m. The said information was reduced into writing and the same was marked as Ex.P-6. In pursuance of the said information, P.W.3, Pakiaraj along with the raiding party were having a watch on 26-8-1992,04.00 a.m. (early hours) at the later junction of Chennai Kamaraj Salai, Nattam Kuppam. At that time, two persons viz., Chidambaram (Appellant in C.A.No. 134 of 1994) and Prabhakaran (Appellant in C.A.No. 725 of 1993) were crossing that side. They were intercepted and informed that they have got to be searched in respect of trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and also informed whether they were willing to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate nearby or before the Gazetted Officer. They had waived the said offer and Chidambaram (First Accused) had produced a parcel with brown colour paper and Prabhakaran (Second Accused) had also produced another parcel with a brown colour paper. Both the parcels were containing "heroin" in a polythene packet and they were weighing 60 grams and 190 grams respectively. Out of these two packets, 5 grams were taken from each packets as samples for chemical analysis and the rest of them were re-packed and tied. N.I.B. Seal was also affixed, Then, P.W.3, Packiaraj informed them that they were in possession of "Heroin" without any valid licence or permission granted by the Government and arrested them. The contraband was seized under a cover of mahazar and the same was marked as Ex.P-1 P.W.3, Packiaraj registered a case against them in N.I.B. Crime No. 92 of 1993 under Section 8(c) read with 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. He also sent a Special report to the Inspector of Police, N.I.B.C.I.D. Madras-17 and the same was marked as Ex.P-4. He had also prepared the printed First Information Report which was marked as Ex.P-5.